Pope Could Soon Say ‘I Do’ to Married Priests–and Open a Schism

[twf]

Oh yes. Married priests is a viable and traditional model. I just didn’t think the US / Russia comparison was a fair one per se.

 

[AlNg]

I just didn’t think the US / Russia comparison was a fair one per se.

Even with the question of the number of bankruptcies? In one case you have 25 bankruptcies pending. In another case, you have zero.

 

[twf]

Well I imagine part of that is the fact that the state is actively supporting the Church in Russia…
But regardless, the ROC is essentially a “reborn” church, emerging from the ashes after the collapse of the Soviet Union… the American Catholic Church is going to be more “stale” and complacent by nature at this point in history. That said, I’m not American.

 

[AlNg]

the American Catholic Church is going to be more “stale” and complacent by nature at this point in history.

There are those who argue that celibacy played a part in the bankruptcy crisis facing the American Catholic church. I haven’t heard anyone (except for your implicit argument) argue that it was staleness which caused the bankruptcies of 25 Catholic religious organizations.
Oh, BTW, there were many Russian Orthodox churches open under communism. The communists claimed that they would not discriminate against believers. It is true though that the public schools discouraged anyone from going to church.

 

[Gab123]

This needs to be put in context.

The context is vocation and Christ’s own words: “ there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."-Matt. 19:12.

Not everyone is called to be married and have a family. Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, St. Faustina, Don Bosco, St. Francis and countless others who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven became spiritual mothers and fathers to countless souls.

Being married is not a job, just as being a priest is not a job. These things are vocations. Thus Paul is certainly right about those who give up everything to serve Christ: An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. -1 Cor. 7.32-34

 

[jack63]

The context is vocation and Christ’s own words: “ there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."-Matt. 19:12.

Thanks for the reply. I would again say this is out context. Instead we need to look at the entire teaching on marriage from Jesus. Matt 19:1-12. I’m taking from the NARVACE. It is below…

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ 4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ 7 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’

10 His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ 11 But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’

It actually appears that Jesus is referring to marriage when he says “Let anyone accept this who can”. Jesus has just given this long and deep teaching on marriage. His disciplines ask “Is it better off not to marry?” He says not everybody can accept this teaching (refering to marriage). He gives three exceptions. After this long teaching on marriage, it makes no sense for Jesus to say, without explanation, that the last of his exceptions is best. Instead, it looks like one should look at the entire teaching on marriage in context. In this sense is nearly impossible to think that the “Let anyone accept this who can” refers to anything other than marriage.

If you can find some serious analysis of this from a biblical scholar that says otherwise, I’d be genuinely interested.

 

[commenter]

IdaCatholic:

married priests would be a disaster.

I don’t see why? The Eastern Orthodox Churches have married priests and it has been working out well. The wife of the priest helps out by greeting people after Divine Liturgy. The first Pope, St. Peter was a married man. Listening to you, one might think that Jesus made a mistake when he chose a married man to be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

The call from Scripture remains.

Jesus called St. Peter to be Pope. Also, how many of the other Apostles were married men? Generally, the only apostle known to be unmarried was St. John. Even St. Paul was married according to Clement of Alexandria and St. Ignatius of Antioch. (However some say Paul was not married).
See: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini.

Peter is the only apostle known to have been married, at some point. He may have been a widower. Every thing else is conjecture.

 

[Gab123]

It actually appears that Jesus is referring to marriage when he says “Let anyone accept this who can”. Jesus has just given this long and deep teaching on marriage. His disciplines ask “Is it better off not to marry?” He says not everybody can accept this teaching (refering to marriage). He gives three exceptions. After this long teaching on marriage, it makes no sense for Jesus to say, without explanation, that the last of his exceptions is best. Instead, it looks like one should look at the entire teaching on marriage in context. In this sense is nearly impossible to think that the “Let anyone accept this who can” refers to anything other than marriage.

The key is the word eunuch. When Jesus said “let anyone accept this who can” He was speaking in the context of becoming eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. A eunuch is someone who does not engage in sexual activity.

Celibacy in the priesthood is not only about being practical; it also has an important spiritual dimension to it. Jesus Himself was celibate. Again, Jesus Himself was celibate. And those who make themselves eunuchs in this life (celibate) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, are conforming themselves to the age to come, where Jesus says there will be no marriage. (Matt. 22:30)

In the gospels a man came up to Jesus and asked: “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

Jesus answered: If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

The man said:“All these I have kept,” “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered; “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

 

[commenter]

It’s a lonely life, and a heck of a way to try and attract vocations. And in the face of that loneliness, is it any wonder that sometimes priests go off the rails?

One can argue that the percentage of married men now who go off the rails is higher, much higher, than the percentage of priests.
To put it another way, men in general are going off the rails more now than before, in both states of life. This is not a good argument for combining these two states of life.

 

[AlNg]

Peter is the only apostle known to have been married

Ambrosiaster says: “All the apostles, with the exception of John and Paul, were married.”
In epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios secundam . XI, 2. PL 17, 320a.

 

[Peebo]

Why all the fuss…I don’t care if my priests are married or not…(we have 4…none are married though)…as long as they are properly ordained and can officiate at the mass…the Holy Eucharist is what is supposed to be the ultimate gift a Catholic can receive…the precious body blood soul and divinity of our Blessed Lord…if other EO Catholic or Orthodox churches which are in communion with Rome have married priests then obviously if we are to believe that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide his church until he (Christ) returns…then that is perfectly in line with Christs church

 

[commenter]

commenter:

Peter is the only apostle known to have been married

Ambrosiaster says: “All the apostles, with the exception of John and Paul, were married.”
In epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios secundam . XI, 2. PL 17, 320a.

According to Wikipedia, Ambrosiaster is a name assigned centuries after his lifetime, to a man we know little about. He lived during the late 4th century.

This is not really a historical record.

 

[commenter]

don’t care if my priests are married or not…(we have 4…none are married though)…as long as they are properly ordained and can officiate at the mass…the Holy Eucharist is what is supposed to be the ultimate gift a Catholic can receive…

Actually salvation is the ultimate gift a Catholic can receive. Eucharist is an important part on the road to that gift. So is marriage. So is diaconate. Marriage and diaconate seem not highly prized by the Amazon Synod.

I knew one man who was held back for 3 years from seminary because our bishop refused to accept him, for reasons I don’t know. The next bishop did accept him, he was ordained, a few years later there is scandal.

I can’t help wondering if some of the horrible scandal resulted from extreme pressure to fill priestly vacancies, either by bending some admission criteria, or by quietly allowing priests to move onto another assignment because we have to staff those parishes.

Celibacy should be considered on its own merits, without regard to any priest shortage.

 

[jack63]

Marriage and diaconate seem not highly prized by the Amazon Synod.

@commenter …I appreciate your comments in general, but I’m not sure why you are saying this.

Celibacy should be considered on its own merits, without regard to any priest shortage.

Actually, I wish the individual were considered on their own merits without regard to celibacy or any priest shortage.

 

[commenter]

Actually, I wish the individual were considered on their own merits without regard to celibacy or any priest shortage.

I hear you.
My feelings are ambiguous at this point. I am disturbed that people who want to expand ministry in the Amazon seem not to strongly consider expanding the diaconate.

I also worry that people in other countries will push for married priests in the Amazon, not because of the Amazon.

I have known a married Eastern Catholic priest, whose wife also ministered in the same outreach ministry, in addition to his parish. But his parish was tiny compared to Latin parishes.

I would be curious about the experience of married Eastern Catholic priests in Ukraine, Lebanon, or other parts of the Middle East or Balkans, where the Eastern parishes are likely huge.

My concern is not that so much for the priesthood but for the married state, which also has a severe shortage of strong couples.

 

[OraLabora]

I think there are practical limitations to the diaconate in the Amazon. A deacon cannot perform the sacraments of the Eucharist or Penance for example, and those are two important needs of the faithful, the lack of which can be an obstacle on the path to salvation. Yes, a deacon can bring communion, but the travel distances are long, transport links few, and hosts preserve poorly in that climate.

A deacon can work in my pastoral unit where the radius of the outlying churches is about 15 km on a well-developed road network. Add a zero or two of jungle for the Amazon, with poor or no roads.

 

[AlNg]

In addition to Ambrosiaster who said that all the apostles were married except for John and Paul, we have the testimony of Ignatius who sat at the feet of the Apostle John:
“For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men . For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind.” (1:81, chap. 4, Ignatius to the Philadelphians).
Further, according to Tertullian:
“The apostles had permission to marry and lead wives about. "
(Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:55, Tertullian,)

Peter is the only apostle known to have been married

I don’t see any evidence that the other apostles (except for John) were unmarried?

 

[CaptFun]

Pfft. The Church has had married priests before … and in fact has them now (married Anglican priests that have come over and have had Holy Orders administered to them … sometimes with their whole communities who have adopted Catholicism).

It would probably open a better schism to say “I don’t” ordain or leave in authority practicing homosexuals per the priesthood, bishoprics, or other positions other than
“penitent and trying to get better” (like the rest of us).

Or call “ally ally in free” on paying out $ to sexual misbehavior victims anymore.

The Church is against sexual misbehavior and so a co-victim.

People who sue the church are victimizing a victim, coveting what is not theirs, harming the schools, churches, and hospitals whose decent employees deserve that money for their service way more than the lawyers who end up getting most of the $.

If the government backs the suing parties by trying to seize Church assets … cry “separation of Church and State” and at least let that perversion of the Constitution
(the so-called establishment clause … that is contained in a sentence and paragraph that PROTECTS the free exercise of religion with its “congress shall make no law …” clause.

Would have married priests mean we’d have MORE (and faithful) priests … to reopen the Churches some Dioceses have been closing for … monetary … or other obscure reasons?

Now since JESUS was unmarried, and it’s HIS priesthood that would be shared … an unmarried priesthood is still preferable for a number of reasons, some of them much less profound … but practical. I prefer leaving it alone (present exceptions notwithstanding).

I pray for this Pope … as I have for the last ones … and hope he uses the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit given him in the most beneficial way in an “On earth as it is in heaven” way.

 

[CaptFun]

per marriage … Jesus once said … (to the questioning Sadducees … who posed what they thought was a question (that would “prove” there was no resurrection by the ridiculous theoretical they posed to make him look silly).

Blockquote Mark 12: 23

At the resurrection when they arise whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her."

[24] Jesus said to them, "Are you not misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

[25] When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.

26

Blockquote

Being chaste is more important … but celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is by no means ridiculous … Jesus and Paul practiced it … Jesus praised it … and the Holy Spirit
filled Paul recommended it.

How about an I DO to willing and eligible Catholic men whose theology more that of service, obedience and traditional … than unruly revolutionaries practicing novel moral departures while drawing more inspiration from contemporary political heroes or the humanistic flavor of the day social issues than Jesus, His Gospel, and the Church as handed down from the apostles.

Many good churchmen are retired … when they could still say masses and hear confessions … things that laypersons have not the power to do.

Consider maybe using these men better.

Searching for a scripture supporting a Christian “retirement”. St. Paul recommended pressing on to the finish.

 

[Leferdion]

Celibate apostles: John, the cousins of Jesus (Judas and James), Simon the zealot, Judas Iscariot and probably Thomas
Married apostles: Simon Peter (had no kids of his own with his wife but adopted a boy when he was an apostle), Philipp, Bartholomew
Apostles whose marital status I am not yet sure about: Matthew, James of Zebedee (brother of John), Andrew (brother of Peter)